Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueAn inside look at the legal battles that lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are facing during the Trump administration.An inside look at the legal battles that lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are facing during the Trump administration.An inside look at the legal battles that lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are facing during the Trump administration.
- Réalisation
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 5 nominations au total
Rachel Maddow
- Self
- (images d'archives)
John Oliver
- Self
- (images d'archives)
Donald Trump
- Self
- (images d'archives)
Résumé
Reviewers say 'The Fight' is a documentary showcasing the ACLU's commitment to civil liberties via high-profile cases. It is lauded for its narrative, emotional depth, and insight into attorneys' work. Yet, some criticize its perceived bias, especially regarding controversial clients and political issues. Debates arise over its balance between free speech and marginalized group protection, with concerns about its potential recruitment and fundraising roles.
Avis à la une
It was incredible. The work of the lawyers and their colleagues truly inspired me.
Greetings again from the darkness. The American Civil Liberties Union has been around since 1920. That's 100 years of striving to be the stewards of our nation's liberties. Eli B Despres, Josh Kriegman, and Elyse Steinberg are the three credited directors who bring us a behind-the-curtain look at the dedicated and hard-working ACLU attorneys in the New York office.
The film picks up on January 27, 2017, just seven days after President Trump's inauguration and subsequent immigration order, also known as the "Muslim ban." We are shown a sea of volunteer attorneys set up to assist affected immigrants - especially those seeking asylum. The basic premise of the movie is to provide a glimpse of the challenges faced by the ACLU against the Trump administration.
Since there have been approximately 140 lawsuits filed since this President took office, the filmmakers wisely focus on four specific cases, along with the assigned attorneys: Garza v Hargan, which involves the right to an abortion for an immigrant minor; Stone v Trump, the administrations military ban of transgenders; Department of Commerce v New York, dealing with the "citizenship" question proposed for the U.S. census; and Ms. L vs ICE, a family separation case tied to a child taken from her mother at the border.
The cases are presented in an easy-to-follow manner, and we get to know each of the attorneys and their individual challenges, both with their specific case and their own personal or family life. Each of the attorneys provide their unique "tour" of the ACLU offices, and we quickly understand how they are focused on their own specialties, rather than the organization as a whole. One of them remarks that there are more tattoos and piercings present than at the DOJ, which underscores not just the age difference, but also the attitudes of these crusaders.
A very brief history of the ACLU informs us that their mission dictates they support civil rights for all, which means not just the 1967 interracial marriage of Richard and Mildred Loving, but also the Charlottesville Rally which resulted in the death of Heather Heyer. In keeping with protecting 'everyone's rights', the organization has even defended the rights of Nazis. Still, it's obvious where the organization stands when Brett Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court is discussed ... the attorneys admit it will make their jobs that much more difficult.
Despite attorney Lee Gelernt's middle-age struggles with technology (somehow the dude can't keep his cell phone charged), the dedication and commitment of these folks is on full display (they even celebrate with "train wine"). Court cases, by definition, have two sides, and since we aren't allowed in the actual courtroom to witness the cases being presented, this film focuses on one side. Because of that, it often plays like a fundraising or recruiting video for the ACLU. Still, the behind-the-scenes view of what these attorneys go through to fight for liberty is fascinating and worthwhile.
The film picks up on January 27, 2017, just seven days after President Trump's inauguration and subsequent immigration order, also known as the "Muslim ban." We are shown a sea of volunteer attorneys set up to assist affected immigrants - especially those seeking asylum. The basic premise of the movie is to provide a glimpse of the challenges faced by the ACLU against the Trump administration.
Since there have been approximately 140 lawsuits filed since this President took office, the filmmakers wisely focus on four specific cases, along with the assigned attorneys: Garza v Hargan, which involves the right to an abortion for an immigrant minor; Stone v Trump, the administrations military ban of transgenders; Department of Commerce v New York, dealing with the "citizenship" question proposed for the U.S. census; and Ms. L vs ICE, a family separation case tied to a child taken from her mother at the border.
The cases are presented in an easy-to-follow manner, and we get to know each of the attorneys and their individual challenges, both with their specific case and their own personal or family life. Each of the attorneys provide their unique "tour" of the ACLU offices, and we quickly understand how they are focused on their own specialties, rather than the organization as a whole. One of them remarks that there are more tattoos and piercings present than at the DOJ, which underscores not just the age difference, but also the attitudes of these crusaders.
A very brief history of the ACLU informs us that their mission dictates they support civil rights for all, which means not just the 1967 interracial marriage of Richard and Mildred Loving, but also the Charlottesville Rally which resulted in the death of Heather Heyer. In keeping with protecting 'everyone's rights', the organization has even defended the rights of Nazis. Still, it's obvious where the organization stands when Brett Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court is discussed ... the attorneys admit it will make their jobs that much more difficult.
Despite attorney Lee Gelernt's middle-age struggles with technology (somehow the dude can't keep his cell phone charged), the dedication and commitment of these folks is on full display (they even celebrate with "train wine"). Court cases, by definition, have two sides, and since we aren't allowed in the actual courtroom to witness the cases being presented, this film focuses on one side. Because of that, it often plays like a fundraising or recruiting video for the ACLU. Still, the behind-the-scenes view of what these attorneys go through to fight for liberty is fascinating and worthwhile.
10dhubin
This is an excellent documentary. It juggles masterfully four recent ACLU cases, never losing the narrative thread of any of them. It is an important documentary exploring in a serious way issues great significance. And it manages to do that with moments of humor and poignant emotion.
For as long as there's been injustice there's been incredible people fighting to right those wrongs and this is an excellent example of the brilliant folk at ACLU doing just that to get justice for all. Absolute heroes!
10annagdlf
I already knew the work at the ACLU was important but this really confirmed that for me. Not only seeing the behind the scenes of all these major court cases but getting to see who it affects and the lives that were changed was incredible!
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- La lucha
- Lieux de tournage
- Tijuana, Mexique(Asylum Seeker)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 2 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée1 heure 36 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 16:9 HD
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant